Are you an atheist? Then you're probably a PSYCHOPATH!

originally posted by: namelesss
No, I am not.
To positively offer an assertion, such as that there is no God, in a philosophic discussion, requires positive philosophic, logical, scientific,
evidentiary support!

When did I directly claim that "there is no god"?

originally posted by: namelesss
That there is none, nor can there be, such positive assertion must be the symptom of a 'belief'.

So you believe that to be an atheist one must directly state that "there is no god"?

originally posted by: namelesss
But in this case it must, because the reason that one cannot 'prove' that something does not exist, is because everything exists! *__-

I never stated that There isn't a god. I simply stated that I lack a belief in one. That statement is not a positive assertion.

originally posted by: namelesss
Again, I was careful to point out "The sect of atheists who assert that "there is no God"", just in case there is something of which I am
unaware....

I see, so you were referring to a group of atheists. Not the total population of atheists.

originally posted by: namelesss
An atheist doesn't need to directly state "there is no god".
Hence my "The sect of atheists who assert that "there is no God""!

Excellent! Just wanted to clarify this point. It is a common misconception to relate all atheists under the "there is no god" assertion.

originally posted by: namelesss
If there is an 'atheist' who says; I have no idea, and if new info arrives, I will revise my position of ignorance (the only honest intellectual
position), then he is, I thought, an agnostic!

Agnosticism isn't a 'neutral' or 'undecided' position. The definition of an agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of
the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. The key point being "can never be known".

I don't personally feel that we cannot know, but still lack a belief in any gods due to the observations we have made thus far. The term for my
position is Atheism, more technically "soft atheism" or "weak atheism", versus "Hard/Strong Atheism" being a direct claim that 'there is no god'.

OK, here is the candid opinion of a self-observant young atheist, as recorded in his diary at the time;

"I had a rather drastic shock last Tuesday [18th], at approximately half past five in the Periodicals Room of the History Faculty Library. I was
musing on the fact that my philosophical and political opinions are all becoming very amoral... I’ve already come to realise that my philosophy,
taken in the abstract, leads to the destruction of all morality. I think it is a fact of observation that I have any morality at all only because it
suits me, and I am forced to recognise that religious people are right in thinking that religious belief is necessary for the bonds of society. If
everyone else reached my position, not all of them would hold it in their interests to abide by the rules."

I was that young atheist. The "drastic shock" was another psychological self-observation not relevant to this topic.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
OK, here is the candid opinion of a self-observant young atheist, as reocrded in his diary at the time;

"I had a rather drastic shock last Tuesday [18th], at approximately half past five in the Periodicals Room of the History Faculty Library. I was
musing on the fact that my philosophical and political opinions are all becoming very amoral... I’ve already come to realise that my philosophy,
taken in the abstract, leads to the destruction of all morality. I think it is a fact of observation that I have any morality at all only because it
suits me, and I am forced to recognise that religious people are right in thinking that religious belief is necessary for the bonds of society. If
everyone else reached my position, not all of them would hold it in their interests to abide by the rules. "

I was that young atheist. The "drastic shock" was another pyschological self-observation not relevant to this topic.

he is subscribing to the notion that religion is moral to begin with is a problem
what used to be (and still is in areas) moral in religion:
Stoning adulterers
stoning people who worked on sabbath
killing people who wore makeup
killing people who were identified as a "witch"
killing the infidels
killing homosexuals
killing "loose" women
killing women who have been raped
bombing clinics and murdering doctors

I could go on of course..for pages
but instead I will counter it

what is needed is not morals of religion, but principles of legal equality among all people. This isn't hard to do.
Religion too often leads to nightmare morality.

a reply to: Ghost147
At keast the subjective observations of an atheist are some sort of evidence about the way atheists think, as distinct from the speculations of
outsiders.
In this case, they couldn't be dismissed as "biased against atheism".

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Ghost147
At keast the subjective observations of an atheist are some sort of evidence about the way atheists think, as distinct from the speculations of
outsiders.

Subjective observations about your own thoughts are evidence on how you once thought, not atheists in general.

I know of some Christians who are psychopaths too.Psycho's always suck but more so when they go around all super-superior and smug about being a good
Christian while spending their whole lives screwing other people over on a daily basis.I prefer the atheist psycho's.

I think a study with less than 500 people should not be treated as fact or picked up by the press and this study is rediculous in the first place.

It's like saying vegetarians are more likely to have mental illness. Well yeah because people with eating disorders restrict their diets and it and
dilutes the field.

Psychopaths can't except anything is greater than than themselves. So they dilute the field. That is not the same as somebody not making claims about
God because of education on the history of barbarism in religion.

I would say not wanting people to kill each other over religion is plenty compassionate.

Funny how lots of psychopaths are cult leaders and religious leaders. I am also going to add most Atheists are soft Atheists and agnostic Atheists
who don't claim there is no God. They just don't believe in God. Usually they leave themselves open to the possibility with evidence and really the
rejection is over supernatural claims and gods intervention with man.

My personal opinion.... a psychopath morals are not based upon one's belief's but I can see an atheist having less empathy than a believer.

Would you agree?

Yes, I would agree. My empathy for your mind-set is decreasing bit by bit every time I read something you have posted. I'm afraid I become a full
blown psychopath regarding your particular beliefe-system anytime soon, unfortunately.

a reply to: SaturnFX
I have to inquire here, Saturn. I personally assert there are no gods/deities, so I'm guessing you would classify me as a gnostic atheist. But I would
disagree. I do not believe in gods/deities because I believe they are a human/social construct/concept. So while I deny the existence of deity, I do
not deny the possibility that an entity might exist, some might refer to as "god". It's just that I do not. Referring to such an entity as deity
elevates it to a status I am not willing to give it, even if it does exist.

If your exerting no gods exist rather than a lack of belief of God that would in philosophy be called hard atheism. Soft atheism would be that you
simply don't hold a belief in God.

The confusing part of your statent is you can't say something like God could be possible. Which is an agnostic aproach.

I think you could clarify by saying you don't believe the religious explanation of God. Wheras the discussion philosophically of a first cause,
designer that could be dead etc are possible. That really is an agnostic atheist position. Some atheist actively claim that God is not possible.
Which is a strong atheist position. As would saying no God exists which is your first statement.

Point really is labels are dumb. I call myself an atheist as rough guideline to say I am not a believer of religion or a supernatural being that
interacts with people. I also know I could be wrong. It's metaphysics.

I agree completely! When theists tell me "This is God", I say "That's no God."

Due to my cultural upbringing, I have been able to self define my own version, because I must in order to fit in, of what constitutes "God". It is,
the total of everything that arises naturally, as well as everything that doesn't, from the universe, which IS God.

Due to my cultural upbringing, I have been able to self define my own version, because I must in order to fit in, of what constitutes "God". It is,
the total of everything that arises naturally, as well as everything that doesn't, from the universe, which IS God.

There! Am I a theist?

Are you a theist? Who cares...doesn't matter. What matters is: The nasty word "God" needs to be defined. That's all one needs to do to end the
argument.

a reply to: luthier
Now you know how I get myself in trouble with atheists and religions alike. I assert no gods exist because a deity can only exist if an entity is
given the prominence and title of god per the aforementioned social construct. I lack belief in gods on those grounds.
However... I do not deny the possibility of an entity or group of entities that may have had a hand in the existence of the known universe, or just
humans. A creator(s) if you wish. I just don't elevate it/them to the level of what humans refer to as "god".

I think you could clarify by saying you don't believe the religious explanation of God. Wheras the discussion philosophically of a first cause,
designer that could be dead etc are possible. That really is an agnostic atheist position. Some atheist actively claim that God is not possible. Which
is a strong atheist position. As would saying no God exists which is your first statement.

Restated: I think you could clarify by saying you don't believe the human explanation of God.
Truly I am an agnostic atheist, except for that one little glitch. I reject the human concept of god. Just because you and I get together and create a
solar system, and create autonomous creatures on one of its planets does not make us gods. It makes us damn smart though. Lol.

Point really is labels are dumb. I call myself an atheist as rough guideline to say I am not a believer of religion or a supernatural being that
interacts with people. I also know I could be wrong. It's metaphysics.

I agree completely! When theists tell me "This is God", I say "That's no God."

Due to my cultural upbringing, I have been able to self define my own version, because I must in order to fit in, of what constitutes "God". It is,
the total of everything that arises naturally, as well as everything that doesn't, from the universe, which IS God.

originally posted by: Raxoxane
I know of some Christians who are psychopaths too.Psycho's always suck but more so when they go around all super-superior and smug about being a good
Christian while spending their whole lives screwing other people over on a daily basis.I prefer the atheist psycho's.

Just some information, there's actually a difference between Psychopath and Psycho; quite a large difference.

Essentially Psycho is just a short form term for Psychosis, which relates to 'crazy', 'mad', 'lunatic', a loss of touch with reality. Things like
Schizophrenia and in some cases Bipolar type 1 disorder relate to psychosis.

Psychopaths are very much aware of reality, they just have a reduced or inability to express empathy.

What is ridiculous about this article is that Psychopaths are born Psychopaths, and most atheists I know were once religious.

One could say Sociopath, because a sociopaths are virtually identical to psychopaths (except a small handful of traits, but the key ones are the
same), although they are made into sociopaths after birth through an event (head trauma) or their environment (abusive upbringing).

The key point in the actual scientific article, unlike the daily mail article, is that the researchers are finding similarities between higher
intelligence, Psychopathy, and atheism, and similarities between a lower intelligence, strong emotions, and religion.

They never once state that "Atheists are psychopaths" and "Religious people are idiots" like the daily mail so adamantly professes.

This type of research always amuses me because its similar statistics. When you research something you set parameters and its where the setting of
those parameters are that often dictates the results of your research. Something that a lot of people take for granted, but its actually very
important. Research projects like this are so similar to statistic gathering you get or prove what you think or someone wants proved.

Non believers are psychopaths what a lot of twoddle. Try looking in places like the NHS where obviously some of the staff there are non-believers,
but does that affect their empathy or efficiency and basic attitude towards their career - dear dear…..

The current day provides a lot of psychopaths within the religious community. Just a quick look at the news today or a flick through people throwing
others off buildings, beheadings, stonings etc all in the good cause of religious belief that this behaviour alongside murder of innocent people by
suicide bombers, is something their God loves and will reward them for.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.